Have a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Calton&action=history page history] rather than just the edit summary. It's not a BLP violation, and the IP has (under various IPs from the same range, and under an account) been in a slowmotion edit war for months - two blocks have already been handed out, he's been told to take it to MfD, but he simply continues to pop up every couple of days to blank it. <sub>[[User:Gb|Gb]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|c]]</sup> 10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Calton&action=history page history] rather than just the edit summary. It's not a BLP violation, and the IP has (under various IPs from the same range, and under an account) been in a slowmotion edit war for months - two blocks have already been handed out, he's been told to take it to MfD, but he simply continues to pop up every couple of days to blank it. <sub>[[User:Gb|Gb]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|c]]</sup> 10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
:I would suggest that you take the time to understand a bit about the background. <sub>[[User:Gb|Gb]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|c]]</sup> 10:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
:I would suggest that you take the time to understand a bit about the background. <sub>[[User:Gb|Gb]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|c]]</sup> 10:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Cla68, I'm wondering if you'd be interested in considering a collaboration on the articles about Japanese carriers & battleships? Cam(Chat)23:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Look forward to it. Please edit away and I'll try to help out later. The Yamato-related articles need some work and they get a lot of views, so it was in that area that I probably was going to start working next, but it will be a few months probably before I get to it.
By the way, I recently acquired some Japanese picture books about IJN aircraft carriers and Yamato class battleships which contain some pictures that I've never seen before, and may not be widely available, or available at all, outside Japan. Subject to when I have spare time, I'm going to start scanning and uploading these pictures to Commons and linking them to image galleries for the different ships. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! You're in Japan, so you likely have access to more resources than I do (and different resources). I'm beginning right with Yamato and then moving onto the rest gradually, so happy editing & uploading! Cam(Chat)03:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get some of the Yamato images uploaded soon. Some especially interesting ones are from the original engineering plans and blueprints, some in color, of the ship's design and construction. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson, Robert (2000). The World's Great Battleships. Brown Books. ISBN 1-89788-460-5
Reynolds, Clark G (1982). The Carrier War. Time-Life Books. ISBN 0-80943-304-4
Schom, Alan (2004). The Eagle and the Rising Sun; The Japanese-American War, 1941-1943. Norton & Company. ISBN 2-00201-594-1
Willmott, H.P. (2000). The Second World War in the Far East. Wellington House. ISBN 2004049199.
Looks good. I have Peattie and Evans' Kaigun, Skulski's Battleship Yamato, Dull's Battle History, and Hansgeorg and Jung, Dieter and Mickel, Peter Jentschura's Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! The last one in that list might come in handy, seeing as it might finally settle some dispute over the statistics on displacement, crew, length etc. The infobox figures and the figures I have access to have contradicted one another on almost every statistic(that, or whoever wrote the infobox really sucked at converting from metres to feet and knots to km/h!). Cam(Chat)03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
USS New Jersey
Thanks for the help. I, too, am interested to see what the response will be (if there is any response). I was not aware that the captain of Big J was part of the coverup. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops nevermind, you're right. I see my mistake. :-) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Quality over Quantity, Cla. I am more than willing to wait for your rewrite to wrap up before going ahead with the FT nom. As it as at the moment I have two articles that are not to FA standards yet and likely will not be until after new years. Its been three years in themaking, a few more monthes of waiting in exchange for an entirely FA FT will not kill me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing I keep forgetting to mention: have you tired to find/found a picture of Clayton Hartwig? I tried for monthes (on again/off again) to find his picture and never did locate anything, and was hoping maybe someone lese could find such an image so as to allow us to put it up here. TomStar810 (Talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Older FAs
While looking at older FAs, I came across Naval Battle of Guadalcanal and Battle of the Eastern Solomons. They are in incredible shape for articles that were promoted to Featured in 2006; I only did a little minor cleanup work. The external links/further reading sections have become a bit linkfarm-y; I marked one deadlink at the former article (and removed a way-too-broad external link), and at the latter article, commented out several external links to books that appear to be general ship histories. Could you take a look when you get a chance? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have no issues with you editing the articles simultaneously (I am a fierce opponent of article ownership). Of particular note should be the fact that I have little to no writings on the "Design and construction" section of both the Yamato battleship and the class page. If you could concentrate on those section, I should be able to finish rewriting the "design features" bit by the end of this week. Cam(Chat)16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article is on my "to do" list to try to bring it up to FA standards. I'll probably get to it in another couple of months. Cla68 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question on naming conventions
one thing I've never quite been able to figure out with regards to ship naming: We call it USS Iowa, using its official designated name. If that's the case, then why do we call the IJN Yamato the Japanese Battleship Yamato? Seems the former would make more sense than the latter. We don't call it United States Battleship Iowa, so why do we apply it to the Axis-power navies? Cam(Chat)06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's been the way it's been done on Wikipedia since before I started editing in late 2005 and I haven't been able to find the original discussion on why it's done that way. I believe the official title for Imperial Japanese Navy ships is, "His Imperial Japanese Majesty's Ship Yamato", which would mean the ship is "HIJMS Yamato". But, I think the argument against this is that the real name is in Japanese, and therefore the "HIJMS" abbreviation is an English-language approximation, and therefore not completely accurate. So, we end up stuck with a generic titile of "Japanese battleship Yamato. I notice that CombinedFleet.com uses "IJN Yamato so perhaps that is the way to go. If so, we should probably bring it up at either the maritime warfare project page or the main MILHIST project talk page. Cla68 (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that answers my question. I'll float it around the Coordinators to see if anyone there knows why it ever was drafted that way. Regardless, I'll begin drafting a proposal to ammend the naming conventions as soon as possible. Cam(Chat)06:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Cordesat's signature on it. Cordesat participated in a thread on WR where it was linked, and didn't mention that it wasn't by him. Cla68 (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I wasn't disputing it, I was just wondering how you knew - I thought perhaps you just misread the diff. In any case I see you've clarified anyway so it's moot. :-) ATren (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lexis apparently doesn't have the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but there is an article "Deadly Blast Haunts Battleship's Skipper," Steve Vogel, March 18, 2001, Washington Post. I think it might be the same story with a different headline, because the byline claims that Steve Vogel is a Washington Post staff writer, and it has a direct quote from Moosally toward the beginning, "Then I knew it was horrible." I could send that to you or post it. I could not find it anywhere online. EDIT: Oh wait, there's this, but the meat of the article is not freely available.
What's the best way to get some MILHIST opinions on an article?
Hi Cla, I know you've done extensive work in the Military History area so I'm seeking your advice. We are having a discussion on an image of soldiers who died during Operation Red Wing, and whether or not it should be included in the article. I've suggested we seek information from those who have written extensively in the MILHIST project with respect to usual practices in such articles; after I suggested that, though, I realised that I don't really know the most effective way to seek those opinions. Any suggestions on a good place to post a request? Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to follow up and say thanks for joining in on this discussion and bringing other eyes to this article. When we have so many well-informed editors on a general topic such as military history, it only makes sense to find out the usual practices and tap in to our resident experts. I've been a tad busy these last few days, but will make my way back over to the article in the near future; I think you and our other colleagues have made some very good points that I find persuasive. Risker (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Port Chicago
As promised, I'm letting you know that I'm 99.9% done with the Port Chicago disaster article. Whatever is left undone is of such low importance that I feel I can turn to other interests for a few months instead. Please see what you can do to improve the flow etc. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James Newland ACR comments
Hi Cla68. I was a little puzzled by your comments in regards to sources at the A-Class review for James Newland, so I have responded there in the aim of clarifying my confusion and was hoping you would be able to reply? Thanks and cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thompson's book gives a lot of good detail, not all of it negative, about Iowa's history after it was taken out of mothballs to when it was decomissioned again. I'll try to add more material to those sections as well as the turret explosion section over the next couple of weeks. What was your timeline for submitting the article for FA? Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Japanese wiki is an image of Major General Maruyama in the article about the Guadacanal campaign. You might want to add this to make the distribution of pictures more even for both sides. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Moosally
I just wanted to say that I noticed a LOT of hard work you have put / are putting into this article. I admire your dedication, efforts, and writing abilities. Ched (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Yamato class main article is finally beginning to take shape, and I've finally got the page rewritten and heavily cited. That said, there's one statistic I'm missing a reference for. Would you happen to have any references that mention the cost of the Yamato vessels? Thanks for your help, Cam(Chat)03:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is going to be hard to pin down with any certainty, but I'll look through my books and throw some numbers and cites out there:
The contract for Musashi on April 10, 1938 gave a delivery price of 64.9 million yen- Yoshimura, Battleship Musashi, p. 43.
For some reason I could not get the image to come up in my web browser, but by using the text in the address bar and matching them to the picture names I think I got the right one. If so, then the image you asked for should be here, uploaded at the commons and ready for use. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iowa Turret explosion
I just noticed that the article was promoted to FA. Congratulations! It's obvious the incredible amount of work and detail you went into on this article. Thanks for the kudos in the FA discussion also. Glad I was able to help. Otto4711 (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, sometime back, you mentioned that combinedfleet.com had been identified as a reliable source. Would you happen to be able to provide the link for this for me? I have a hunch that it will get asked in the future FAC of the Yamato class, and I want to have that link as assurance that the site is reliable. Cam(Chat)01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've no desire to get into a Giano argument with you or anyone. But I was a little mistified by your comment on the RfC and I've made some observations here. I'd be interested in your reply (in general and not "about Giano"). Thanks.--Scott Mac (Doc)10:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)#Dubious an issue concerning whether the article uses nautical or statue miles has been raised. While researching for the turret explosion, did you find any info that the standard range for the 16in guns was in statue miles, 'cause I was under the impression that all figures given were in nautical mile form. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to answer. It appears that naval gun ranges are always in nautical miles. I've never seen anything to indicated that statute miles are used unless it is clearly stated that it is statute miles that are being given. The default appears to be nautical miles. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I apreciate it. Of all things I expected to be called for the difference between nm and sm was pretty far down on the list. Guess it goes to show that the thing you least expect is the thing others will question :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology
I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.
It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with File:EasternSolomonsMap.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:EasternSolomonsMap.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Before I give an answer I think it best to talk this over with the guys working the FT push for the class; I think it would be unfair of me to to decide anything without consulting them first. I will get back to you when we have a definitive answer, maybe a day or two. Is this ok? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since your name appears on the list of major contributors I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer you a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maps
Have you been through the maps collection at the Library of Congress?[2] It's hit or miss what you'll find there, but when they're good they're really good. For example, this map of the water supply for Kobe, Japan[3] which is insanely high resolution. The subject might seem kind of boring until you notice who made it and when. I'm just not sure where to place something like that, but have a look and drop word at my user talk if you find one you can use. Best wishes, DurovaCharge!17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When someone is improving an article for GA, A-class, or FA consideration, I try to leave creative control of the article to them, except for helping out with some grammar or copyediting. That's why I didn't do it myself. I was preparing to participate in the A-class review for the Burge article and looked over the article first. If you don't want to use a fair use image of the subject of a BLP, or believe someone will object if you try, that's fine. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand very much that a picture would be useful. However, unless we can show him on the cover of something in a way that is relevant to the article, I don't think a fair use image is appropriate. There are in fact images very high in the search results on the cover of the Chicago Sun-Times. However, I do not see the newspaper article as significant to his biography. Thus, I am staying away from fair use. I apologize if I did not explain myself previously. I am going to copy this to his talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any info?
So I think that I am going to write an article on the never-built Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser...would any books in your library have any additional info than this? (Otherwise, I will probably have to wait until I buy Conway's 1922–1946 so I can see the history ('background') of the Royal Netherlands Navy up to WWII on page 386 (argh Google Books...)) Thanks for the help, —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)02:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I only have books that cover the Imperial Japanese and US World War II navies. I'll try to find some book titles that might have information on this subject. For what it's worth, there probably are some German sources (as well as Dutch) that likely cover that subject, but I don't know if that helps you any. Cla68 (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Operation Ten-Go - a valuable contribution to the project on an important piece of military history. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the page history rather than just the edit summary. It's not a BLP violation, and the IP has (under various IPs from the same range, and under an account) been in a slowmotion edit war for months - two blocks have already been handed out, he's been told to take it to MfD, but he simply continues to pop up every couple of days to blank it. GbT/c10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_off_the_coast_of_Lebanon.jpg){kind=link}
Hello! Your submission of Japanese destroyer Kamikaze (1922) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jappalang (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
